I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that kind of message IS delivered. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in a lot death penalty cases someone ignores that instruction.
Thats fine and dandy but they are not supposed to question anything morally. That is the whole idea of criminal cases. It isnt a question of morals, its a question of did they or did they not commit the crime, and what punishment is fitting under the law(at least in the case of murder trials)...
Thats fine and dandy but they are not supposed to question anything morally. That is the whole idea of criminal cases. It isnt a question of morals, its a question of did they or did they not commit the crime, and what punishment is fitting under the law (at least in the case of murder trials)...
And they had ALREADY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE and found him guilty!!!!!! The reference to the Bible came during the SENTENCING phase. And again, the judge himself admitted the punishment fitted the crime if any case qualified for such a remedy.
The moralty of the death penalty IS an extraneous consideration. The death penalty was a part of this case when the trial opened. The law had already been examined by Colorado's lawmakers and presumably the morality of the statute was carefully contemplated. It wasn't the jury's job to call into question the handiwork of Colorado's government. That said, when another human being's fate is placed in a jury's hands, it is just plain nuts to think that this is going to be a completely passionless discharge of civc responsiblity. Here in the real world, the morality of what's being weighed is probably going to elbow it's way into at least one of the juror's minds.
And they had ALREADY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE and found him guilty!!!!!! The reference to the Bible came during the SENTENCING phase. And again, the judge himself admitted the punishment fitted the crime if any case qualified for such a remedy.
The moralty of the death penalty IS an extraneous consideration. The death penalty was a part of this case when the trial opened. The law had already been examined by Colorado's lawmakers and presumably the morality of the statute was carefully contemplated. It wasn't the jury's job to call into question the handiwork of Colorado's government. That said, when another human being's fate is placed in a jury's hands, it is just plain nuts to think that this is going to be a completely passionless discharge of civc responsiblity. Here in the real world, the morality of what's being weighed is probably going to elbow it's way into at least one of the juror's minds.
Dude... calm down. I was refering to the sentancing phase when I said clearly 'what punishment is fitting under the law.' Ideally they would be dispassionate, and they should be as dispassionate as possible, and beyond that they SHOULD NOT CONSULT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL when making the sentancing choice. There is no reason to consult the bible in the sentancing process. They followed neither the letter nor the heart of the law. The judge was absolutely right in tossing out the sentance...
Then he shouldn´t have been chosen in the first place.
And the guilt/sentence phase: There is no difference on what to consult. When you have been found guilty of a crime you have a frame within which the guilty can be convicted. But its not fair game. You have to decide if the crime was in the severe or the light area within the area of the crime (based on the law and former cases like it). No other arguments are legitimite.
alright. so maybe it was. but that doesnt mean the process that led to that conclusion was fitting...
Quote:
Wrong. There is a reason: If one is a believer who is unsure of the morality of the death penalty.
And what does the bible say on this? Both views are expressed. How exactly does that help? It doesnt.
(Granted that was probably a strawman, but it was pointed out before that both views are expressed within that holy book)
Regardless. It is not the morality of the death penalty which is in question at all and hence it is inappropriate. Period. No allowances against the suggestions and rules of the court should be granted when a part of a man's life is at stake.
(This is all mine: If a person has to turn to a book to get their moral bearings then that person lacks the understanding of his own actions or the actions of others to make a judgement of another person. If we all just followed the program then their would be no reason to have trials at all...its all clearly laid out in the good book. That logic is complete bullshit. Dont ever deny a person's ability to judge for themselves, using the Bible in this case was a crutch to the minds of the jurors when they were supposedly considering something they shouldnt have been and that is good enough reason to toss out the trial. Unthinking jurors are not wanted. Jurors have the right to interpret the law. Not a bible passage. If they had deemed the man to life imprisonment, and used the bible to get to that point, I would still be arguing my same line.)
And what does the bible say on this? Both views are expressed. How exactly does that help? It doesnt.
It doesn't help you. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help someone else.
Quote:
(Granted that was probably a strawman, but it was pointed out before that both views are expressed within that holy book)
By me.
Quote:
Regardless. It is not the morality of the death penalty which is in question at all and hence it is inappropriate. Period. No allowances against the suggestions and rules of the court should be granted when a part of a man's life is at stake...
The only chance that man had of something other than a death penalty was someone worrying themselves over the morality of what they were doing.
Quote:
... using the Bible in this case was a crutch...
And contempt for the moral compass of believers is your crutch.
Then he shouldn't have been chosen in the first place.
And the guilt/sentence phase: There is no difference on what to consult. When you have been found guilty of a crime you have a frame within which the guilty can be convicted. But its not fair game. You have to decide if the crime was in the severe or the light area within the area of the crime (based on the law and former cases like it). No other arguments are legitimite.
Please follow me on this. The defendant was found guilty of a capital crime. There is no serious debate whether this crime qualified for the death penalty. You're a juror. You know the implications of your vote. A man IS going to be sentenced to death. This isn't some campus bullsh!t session. This is the real world and it's happening to you. A man's life is about to be voted down. Is it that surprising a question now arises in your mind over whether the death penalty is itself a moral punishment? Just because you're not supposed to consider this question can you honestly say you wouldn't anyway? I've already admitted that the jury selection process probably wasn't all it should be. But there you are. You're a juror on a captial case and you aren't sure the death penalty is moral. What now? The evidence Is pushing you to make a decision you're not sure is moral. What now?
It wasn't the jury's job to call into question the handiwork of Colorado's government.
Agree completely.
Quote:
That said, when another human being's fate is placed in a jury's hands, it is just plain nuts to think that this is going to be a completely passionless discharge of civc responsiblity. Here in the real world, the morality of what's being weighed is probably going to elbow it's way into at least one of the juror's minds.
So you realize that you're basically questioning the entire judical system, because judging a case on its merrits and the law, while putting aside one's personal predjudices and beliefs, is exactly what each and every juror is required to do?
I once sat in the jury pool for a domestic custody case, where a father was being put on trial for custodial interference. During the jury selection process, one of the selected jurors asked to be dismissed on the grounds that she could not judge the case objectively because she was a mother who was also going through a divorce. Both attorneys and the judge agreed, thanked her for her time, and sent her on her way.
Passionless? No, of course not. Jurors aren't expected to be robots, but they are expected to judge a case according to the rules of jurisprudence, and basing their sentencing guidelines on the Bible is in clear violation of those rules, regardless of whether or not that sentence was deserved. (If this is actually what happend, as the article wasn't clear. It could have been a case of fancy lawyering on the defense attorney's part. I agree that the prosecution probably screwed up somewhere.)
zaphod_beeblebrox, I have to say that I'm a bit confused about what you're arguing. On one hand, you're agreeing that a person's own morality has no business in a jury trial, but on the other, you're excusing it when it is brought into play? The severity of the crime is a non-issue. Whether the case is shoplifting or capital murder, a juror's responsiblity is a juror's responsibility. If a juror cannot meet that responsibility, then it is on that person to be an adult, and excuse him/herself. And again, yes, the prosecution probably screwed up here because they are supposed to eliminate "problem" jurors during the selection process.
It doesn't help you. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help someone else.
If you are looking for answers and all are given, the answer you choose is your own. There is no reason for that first step.
Quote:
By me.
thank you for being honest...
Quote:
The only chance that man had of something other than a death penalty was someone worrying themselves over the morality of what they were doing.
No, the only chance is whether his crime is one that deserves the lesser (or greater, in my opinion) sentance of life imprisonment. Man commits murder does not always equal death penalty.
Quote:
And contempt for the moral compass of believers is your crutch.
I dont hold any contempt for the Bible. I think it has an amazing ability to let people find their own answers through their own interpretations. I would only hope that believers realize this.
Please follow me on this. The defendant was found guilty of a capital crime. There is no serious debate whether this crime qualified for the death penalty. You're a juror. You know the implications of your vote. A man IS going to be sentenced to death. This isn't some campus bullsh!t session. This is the real world and it's happening to you. A man's life is about to be voted down. Is it that surprising a question now arises in your mind over whether the death penalty is itself a moral punishment? Just because you're not supposed to consider this question can you honestly say you wouldn't anyway? I've already admitted that the jury selection process probably wasn't all it should be. But there you are. You're a juror on a captial case and you aren't sure the death penalty is moral. What now? The evidence Is pushing you to make a decision you're not sure is moral. What now?
Take a stand for or against the death penalty after the trial. It is not appropriate to do so in the jury room when the law is what you are there for. If you find yourself in this conundrum ask to be excused. One would hope this would occur early in the trial so an alternate juror can be placed.
i went to what was arguably once the most liberal college on the east coast and the editors went out of their way to put in conservative/alterative viewpoints even though they represented some 10% of the campus population...
I would invite you to read what happened to David Horowitz when he attempted to publish a paid advertisement in several college newspapers against reparations to black americans.
Also, visit the Student Press Law Center which deals with First Amendment issues for student newspapers. Read the news items. Many deal with liberals trying to silence conservative opinions.
So you realize that you're basically questioning the entire judical system, because judging a case on its merrits and the law, while putting aside one's personal predjudices and beliefs, is exactly what each and every juror is required to do?
A capital case is unlike other cases because the stakes are so much higher. I say there's no constitutional defect should someone survive the jury screening process who isn't already predisposed to executions. Sentencing is often a judgement call. If it wasn't, we could have everything written down ahead of time and let the jury go immediately after a finding of guilt.
Quote:
Passionless? No, of course not. Jurors aren't expected to be robots, but they are expected to judge a case according to the rules of jurisprudence, and basing their sentencing guidelines on the Bible is in clear violation of those rules...
Red Herring. The Bible can't be used that way. It can only speak to the broader issue of whether or not state executions are a moral.
Quote:
zaphod_beeblebrox, I have to say that I'm a bit confused about what you're arguing... The severity of the crime is a non-issue...
No, the only chance is whether his crime is one that deserves the lesser (or greater, in my opinion) sentance of life imprisonment. Man commits murder does not always equal death penalty.
Again, even the judge said this qualified as a death penalty case. Who on that jury was going to go for life imprisonment if not the one who worried himself over the morality of the death penalty?
Red Herring. The Bible can't be used that way. It can only speak to the broader issue of whether or not state executions are a moral.
Then you should use the moral you extract from the bible when you vote. Not as a juror.
Now lets say someone overqualified to the death penalty. Killed seven people each day for the last fifteen years and did it only to rob them from their money. What if someone said "Hey but the bible say forgive and forget. I don´t care what he did. The bible won´t let me give him the chair". Would that be okay? I am as anti-death as they come but still its an invalid point to make as a juror and the fight against the death penalty should be political, not legal.
Sentencing is often a judgement call. If it wasn't, we could have everything written down ahead of time and let the jury go immediately after a finding of guilt.
Everything could NOT be written down on the forehand. The law has to general and open for interpretation. But thats excatly what they should do. Interpretate the law when deciding the sentence.
Mind is the computer. Law is the program. What happened is the data. Bible is the virus.
... lets say someone overqualified to the death penalty. Killed seven people each day for the last fifteen years and did it only to rob them from their money. What if someone said "Hey but the bible say forgive and forget. I don´t care what he did. The bible won´t let me give him the chair". Would that be okay?
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what occurred in this case.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
Wow, this is like watching tennis.
...which I suppose makes you the psychotic fan rushing on the court to stab one of the players with a pen knife?
8)
Originally posted by jesperas
...which I suppose makes you the psychotic fan rushing on the court to stab one of the players with a pen knife?
8)
hmmmmmm....now that you mention it....
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that kind of message IS delivered. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in a lot death penalty cases someone ignores that instruction.
Thats fine and dandy but they are not supposed to question anything morally. That is the whole idea of criminal cases. It isnt a question of morals, its a question of did they or did they not commit the crime, and what punishment is fitting under the law(at least in the case of murder trials)...
Originally posted by billybobsky
Thats fine and dandy but they are not supposed to question anything morally. That is the whole idea of criminal cases. It isnt a question of morals, its a question of did they or did they not commit the crime, and what punishment is fitting under the law (at least in the case of murder trials)...
And they had ALREADY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE and found him guilty!!!!!! The reference to the Bible came during the SENTENCING phase. And again, the judge himself admitted the punishment fitted the crime if any case qualified for such a remedy.
The moralty of the death penalty IS an extraneous consideration. The death penalty was a part of this case when the trial opened. The law had already been examined by Colorado's lawmakers and presumably the morality of the statute was carefully contemplated. It wasn't the jury's job to call into question the handiwork of Colorado's government. That said, when another human being's fate is placed in a jury's hands, it is just plain nuts to think that this is going to be a completely passionless discharge of civc responsiblity. Here in the real world, the morality of what's being weighed is probably going to elbow it's way into at least one of the juror's minds.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
And they had ALREADY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE and found him guilty!!!!!! The reference to the Bible came during the SENTENCING phase. And again, the judge himself admitted the punishment fitted the crime if any case qualified for such a remedy.
The moralty of the death penalty IS an extraneous consideration. The death penalty was a part of this case when the trial opened. The law had already been examined by Colorado's lawmakers and presumably the morality of the statute was carefully contemplated. It wasn't the jury's job to call into question the handiwork of Colorado's government. That said, when another human being's fate is placed in a jury's hands, it is just plain nuts to think that this is going to be a completely passionless discharge of civc responsiblity. Here in the real world, the morality of what's being weighed is probably going to elbow it's way into at least one of the juror's minds.
Dude... calm down. I was refering to the sentancing phase when I said clearly 'what punishment is fitting under the law.' Ideally they would be dispassionate, and they should be as dispassionate as possible, and beyond that they SHOULD NOT CONSULT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL when making the sentancing choice. There is no reason to consult the bible in the sentancing process. They followed neither the letter nor the heart of the law. The judge was absolutely right in tossing out the sentance...
Originally posted by billybobsky
Dude... calm down. I was refering to the sentancing phase when I said clearly 'what punishment is fitting under the law.'
And the judge ADMITTED it was fitting.
... There is no reason to consult the bible in the sentancing process....
Wrong. There is a reason: If one is a believer who is unsure of the morality of the death penalty.
And the guilt/sentence phase: There is no difference on what to consult. When you have been found guilty of a crime you have a frame within which the guilty can be convicted. But its not fair game. You have to decide if the crime was in the severe or the light area within the area of the crime (based on the law and former cases like it). No other arguments are legitimite.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
And the judge ADMITTED it was fitting.
alright. so maybe it was. but that doesnt mean the process that led to that conclusion was fitting...
Wrong. There is a reason: If one is a believer who is unsure of the morality of the death penalty.
And what does the bible say on this? Both views are expressed. How exactly does that help? It doesnt.
(Granted that was probably a strawman, but it was pointed out before that both views are expressed within that holy book)
Regardless. It is not the morality of the death penalty which is in question at all and hence it is inappropriate. Period. No allowances against the suggestions and rules of the court should be granted when a part of a man's life is at stake.
(This is all mine: If a person has to turn to a book to get their moral bearings then that person lacks the understanding of his own actions or the actions of others to make a judgement of another person. If we all just followed the program then their would be no reason to have trials at all...its all clearly laid out in the good book. That logic is complete bullshit. Dont ever deny a person's ability to judge for themselves, using the Bible in this case was a crutch to the minds of the jurors when they were supposedly considering something they shouldnt have been and that is good enough reason to toss out the trial. Unthinking jurors are not wanted. Jurors have the right to interpret the law. Not a bible passage. If they had deemed the man to life imprisonment, and used the bible to get to that point, I would still be arguing my same line.)
Originally posted by billybobsky
And what does the bible say on this? Both views are expressed. How exactly does that help? It doesnt.
It doesn't help you. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help someone else.
(Granted that was probably a strawman, but it was pointed out before that both views are expressed within that holy book)
By me.
Regardless. It is not the morality of the death penalty which is in question at all and hence it is inappropriate. Period. No allowances against the suggestions and rules of the court should be granted when a part of a man's life is at stake...
The only chance that man had of something other than a death penalty was someone worrying themselves over the morality of what they were doing.
... using the Bible in this case was a crutch...
And contempt for the moral compass of believers is your crutch.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Then he shouldn't have been chosen in the first place.
And the guilt/sentence phase: There is no difference on what to consult. When you have been found guilty of a crime you have a frame within which the guilty can be convicted. But its not fair game. You have to decide if the crime was in the severe or the light area within the area of the crime (based on the law and former cases like it). No other arguments are legitimite.
Please follow me on this. The defendant was found guilty of a capital crime. There is no serious debate whether this crime qualified for the death penalty. You're a juror. You know the implications of your vote. A man IS going to be sentenced to death. This isn't some campus bullsh!t session. This is the real world and it's happening to you. A man's life is about to be voted down. Is it that surprising a question now arises in your mind over whether the death penalty is itself a moral punishment? Just because you're not supposed to consider this question can you honestly say you wouldn't anyway? I've already admitted that the jury selection process probably wasn't all it should be. But there you are. You're a juror on a captial case and you aren't sure the death penalty is moral. What now? The evidence Is pushing you to make a decision you're not sure is moral. What now?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It wasn't the jury's job to call into question the handiwork of Colorado's government.
Agree completely.
That said, when another human being's fate is placed in a jury's hands, it is just plain nuts to think that this is going to be a completely passionless discharge of civc responsiblity. Here in the real world, the morality of what's being weighed is probably going to elbow it's way into at least one of the juror's minds.
So you realize that you're basically questioning the entire judical system, because judging a case on its merrits and the law, while putting aside one's personal predjudices and beliefs, is exactly what each and every juror is required to do?
I once sat in the jury pool for a domestic custody case, where a father was being put on trial for custodial interference. During the jury selection process, one of the selected jurors asked to be dismissed on the grounds that she could not judge the case objectively because she was a mother who was also going through a divorce. Both attorneys and the judge agreed, thanked her for her time, and sent her on her way.
Passionless? No, of course not. Jurors aren't expected to be robots, but they are expected to judge a case according to the rules of jurisprudence, and basing their sentencing guidelines on the Bible is in clear violation of those rules, regardless of whether or not that sentence was deserved. (If this is actually what happend, as the article wasn't clear. It could have been a case of fancy lawyering on the defense attorney's part. I agree that the prosecution probably screwed up somewhere.)
zaphod_beeblebrox, I have to say that I'm a bit confused about what you're arguing. On one hand, you're agreeing that a person's own morality has no business in a jury trial, but on the other, you're excusing it when it is brought into play? The severity of the crime is a non-issue. Whether the case is shoplifting or capital murder, a juror's responsiblity is a juror's responsibility. If a juror cannot meet that responsibility, then it is on that person to be an adult, and excuse him/herself. And again, yes, the prosecution probably screwed up here because they are supposed to eliminate "problem" jurors during the selection process.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It doesn't help you. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help someone else.
If you are looking for answers and all are given, the answer you choose is your own. There is no reason for that first step.
By me.
thank you for being honest...
The only chance that man had of something other than a death penalty was someone worrying themselves over the morality of what they were doing.
No, the only chance is whether his crime is one that deserves the lesser (or greater, in my opinion) sentance of life imprisonment. Man commits murder does not always equal death penalty.
And contempt for the moral compass of believers is your crutch.
I dont hold any contempt for the Bible. I think it has an amazing ability to let people find their own answers through their own interpretations. I would only hope that believers realize this.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Please follow me on this. The defendant was found guilty of a capital crime. There is no serious debate whether this crime qualified for the death penalty. You're a juror. You know the implications of your vote. A man IS going to be sentenced to death. This isn't some campus bullsh!t session. This is the real world and it's happening to you. A man's life is about to be voted down. Is it that surprising a question now arises in your mind over whether the death penalty is itself a moral punishment? Just because you're not supposed to consider this question can you honestly say you wouldn't anyway? I've already admitted that the jury selection process probably wasn't all it should be. But there you are. You're a juror on a captial case and you aren't sure the death penalty is moral. What now? The evidence Is pushing you to make a decision you're not sure is moral. What now?
Take a stand for or against the death penalty after the trial. It is not appropriate to do so in the jury room when the law is what you are there for. If you find yourself in this conundrum ask to be excused. One would hope this would occur early in the trial so an alternate juror can be placed.
Originally posted by Scott
I think this is a case where the Judge was anti-death penalty and found/was given a reason to over turn a conviction.
Even if that's the case, the reason to overturn the conviction was valid.
Originally posted by billybobsky
that is complete bullshit...
i went to what was arguably once the most liberal college on the east coast and the editors went out of their way to put in conservative/alterative viewpoints even though they represented some 10% of the campus population...
I would invite you to read what happened to David Horowitz when he attempted to publish a paid advertisement in several college newspapers against reparations to black americans.
Also, visit the Student Press Law Center which deals with First Amendment issues for student newspapers. Read the news items. Many deal with liberals trying to silence conservative opinions.
(SPLC News item about Horowitz)
Berkeley Mob Trashes Newspapers Containing Anti-Reparations Ad
Editor-in-Chief Permits Theft of Newspaper, Calls Ad An Example of 'Bigotry
Sorry to get so off topic, but i just had to reply to that!
Originally posted by jesperas
So you realize that you're basically questioning the entire judical system, because judging a case on its merrits and the law, while putting aside one's personal predjudices and beliefs, is exactly what each and every juror is required to do?
A capital case is unlike other cases because the stakes are so much higher. I say there's no constitutional defect should someone survive the jury screening process who isn't already predisposed to executions. Sentencing is often a judgement call. If it wasn't, we could have everything written down ahead of time and let the jury go immediately after a finding of guilt.
Passionless? No, of course not. Jurors aren't expected to be robots, but they are expected to judge a case according to the rules of jurisprudence, and basing their sentencing guidelines on the Bible is in clear violation of those rules...
Red Herring. The Bible can't be used that way. It can only speak to the broader issue of whether or not state executions are a moral.
zaphod_beeblebrox, I have to say that I'm a bit confused about what you're arguing... The severity of the crime is a non-issue...
I'm arguing (in part) that it's NOT a non-issue.
Originally posted by billybobsky
No, the only chance is whether his crime is one that deserves the lesser (or greater, in my opinion) sentance of life imprisonment. Man commits murder does not always equal death penalty.
Again, even the judge said this qualified as a death penalty case. Who on that jury was going to go for life imprisonment if not the one who worried himself over the morality of the death penalty?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Red Herring. The Bible can't be used that way. It can only speak to the broader issue of whether or not state executions are a moral.
Then you should use the moral you extract from the bible when you vote. Not as a juror.
Now lets say someone overqualified to the death penalty. Killed seven people each day for the last fifteen years and did it only to rob them from their money. What if someone said "Hey but the bible say forgive and forget. I don´t care what he did. The bible won´t let me give him the chair". Would that be okay? I am as anti-death as they come but still its an invalid point to make as a juror and the fight against the death penalty should be political, not legal.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Sentencing is often a judgement call. If it wasn't, we could have everything written down ahead of time and let the jury go immediately after a finding of guilt.
Everything could NOT be written down on the forehand. The law has to general and open for interpretation. But thats excatly what they should do. Interpretate the law when deciding the sentence.
Mind is the computer. Law is the program. What happened is the data. Bible is the virus.
Originally posted by Anders the White
... lets say someone overqualified to the death penalty. Killed seven people each day for the last fifteen years and did it only to rob them from their money. What if someone said "Hey but the bible say forgive and forget. I don´t care what he did. The bible won´t let me give him the chair". Would that be okay?
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what occurred in this case.